DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/648239, “ANODE AND LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME”, was filed with the USPTO on 4/26/24 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 10/19/23.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 12/30/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Several claims, including base claim 1, utilize the relative term “about”. Applicant’s specification (i.e. published paragraph [0040]) gives several different possible meanings for “about” and leaves the meaning subject to the opinion of an artisan. As different artisans may have different opinions, the meaning of “about” in the claims is ambiguous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Berhe (“A new class of lithium-ion battery using sulfurized carbon anode…” Journal of Power Sources, 434, (2019), 1-9) and Rogojina (US 2023/0035035).
Regarding claim 1-6, Berhe teaches an anode (see S-C(PAN) of Graphical abstract) comprising: an anode current collector (e.g. “aluminum foil current collector”, Section 2.3); and an electrodeposition induction layer on the anode current collector (Section 2.3 describes an anode slurry deposited on the current collector to provide an anode) and comprising a first carbon-based material (abstract describes “sulfurized carbon anode from polyacrylonitrile S-C(PAN)”, which is a carbon-based material).
Berhe is silent as to the first carbon-based material is amorphous carbon comprising a nitrogen element, and a content of the nitrogen element is more than or equal to about 1 wt % [or more narrowly between 1.1 and 10 wt% with respect to claim 2] with respect to a total weight of the electrodeposition induction layer.
However, the properties of high nitrogen content and amorphous structure appear to be implicitly present as the carbon material is obtained by processing a sulfur-polyacrylonitrile mixture (see Section 2.1), with polyacrylonitrile being a high nitrogen weight percentage precursor material and the heat treatment functional to convert the mixture to an amorphous “carbon anode from polyacrylonitrile”. The disclosed 4:1 ratio of sulfur to PAN [comprising C3H3N repeating units] ratio implies a nitrogen content on the order of 5% (obtained by considering the 4:1 ratio and the nitrogen content in PAN; the 4:1 sulfur to PAN ratio also lies the range of claim 6). Complete crystallization would not be expected at the carbonization temperatures, thereby suggesting an amorphous structure.
Moreover, as to the specific content of nitrogen, it has been held that “[g]enerally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation… It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” (MPEP 2144.05 II) Thus, even if the nitrogen content of Berhe could be shown to deviate somewhat from the claimed range, this difference alone is insufficient to establish nonobvious absent evidence that the difference is critical in the context of the claimed invention.
Berhe does not appear to teach the anode comprising a protective layer on the electrodeposition induction layer.
In the battery art, Rogojina teaches (e.g. Figs. 1, 2) anode comprising: an anode current collector (items 101,201); an electrodeposition induction layer on the anode current collector and comprising a first carbon-based material (item 120,220; paragraph [0136]); and a protective layer (item 285, or 140/142) on the electrodeposition induction layer.
Rogojina further teaches wherein the protection layer is included for multiple benefits such as providing mechanical support, preventing dendrite formation and/or preventing protrusion of a dendrite through the battery in the event that dendrites do form (paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the anode of Berhe by providing a protection layer on the electrodeposition layer, for benefits such as providing mechanical support, preventing dendrite formation and/or preventing protrusion of a dendrite through the battery in the event that dendrites do form as taught by Rogojina.
Alternative rejection modifying Rogojina in view of Berhe
It is noted that Rogojina teaches most of the features of claim 1 as described above, but does not appear to teach wherein the first anode layer does not appear to teach wherein the electrodeposition induction layer comprising a first carbon-based material is an amorphous carbon comprising a nitrogen element, and a content of the nitrogen element is more than or equal to about 1 wt % with respect to a total weight of the electrodeposition induction layer.
However, Berhe further teaches that the S-C(PAN) material of the electrodeposition induction layer provides several advantages such as high capacity, chemical stability even with a carbonate-based electrolyte, reduced dissolution of higher order polysulfides, low cost, and environmental friendliness (Introduction Section).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to begin with the anode of Rogojina and to substitute the carbon-based anode material of Rogojina with the S-C(PAN) carbon-based anode material of Berhe for the benefit of yielding one or more advantages such as high capacity, chemical stability even with a carbonate-based electrolyte, reduced dissolution of higher order polysulfides, low cost, and environmental friendliness as taught by Berhe.
Regarding claim 8-10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The cited art further teaches wherein the electrodeposition layer comprises a second carbon based material such as carbon black or carbon nanotubes (“Super P”, Berhe Section 2.3; “conductive additive”, Rogojina paragraph [0183]) in an 8:1 ratio (Berhe Section 2.3).
It would have been obvious to include a carbon-based conductive material such as carbon black in the anode for the benefit of including a conductive additive which would reduce ohmic losses as electrons are transported through the anode. The claimed range of about 1:99 to about 99:1 is found to be obvious as the suggestion of the prior art lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11-12 and 14-15, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Berhe further teaches the electrodeposition induction layer comprising a binder such as CMC at a 1:8 weight ratio relative to the first carbon material (Section 2.3), while Rogojina teaches that species of binder include fluorine based binders and acrylic binders such as polyacrylic acid in addition to CMC (paragraph [0199]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include in the electrodeposition induction layer a binder, such as a fluorine based binder or an acrylic binder, at an amount within the 1-30 parts per 100 parts of the first carbon material as taught by Berhe and Rogojina, for the benefit of providing adequate adhesion between the particles of the layer and/or adhesion to the current collector.
Regarding claim 16, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Rogojina, relied on in the rejection of claim 1 to teach the protective layer, further teaches wherein a thickness of the protective layer may be value within the range of about 1 μm to about 20 μm (paragraphs [0007, 0156] teaches the overlapping range of 0.001 to 5 μm, rendering the overlapping claimed range as obvious).
Regarding claim 17-18, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The claimed lithium electrodeposition layer disposed on the electrodeposition induction layer appears to be a consequence of the charging of a cell as lithium ions move from the cathode and are deposited within the anode as described in applicant’s published paragraph [0024]. Since the cited art teaches the same electrochemical action (e.g. Berhe Section 3.1); therefore, a lithium electrodeposition layer would be also expected to be deposited between the electrodeposition induction layer and the protective layer during charging for the battery of the combined embodiment.
Moreover, the because the lithium electrodeposition layer is formed by the same mechanism as that of the claimed invention, the same layer thickness, i.e. 50 μm or less would be expected.
Regarding claim 19 and 20, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The cited art further teaches the anode as a subcomponent of a lithium battery comprising a cathode, the anode, and an electrolyte disposed therebetween (Berhe Fig. 1; Rogojina Figs. 1, 2), wherein the electrolyte liquid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte or a solid electrolyte (Berhe Section 2.3 describes a liquid electrolyte; Rogojina paragraph [0082] describes a liquid electrolyte).
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Berhe (“A new class of lithium-ion battery using sulfurized carbon anode…” Journal of Power Sources, 434, (2019), 1-9), Rogojina (US 2023/0035035) and Iijima (USP 6344235).
Regarding claim 7, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The cited art does not appear to teach wherein an average particle diameter of the first carbon-based material in a form of particles is in a range of about 100 nm to about 10 μm.
In the battery art, Iijima teaches that the particle size of a negative electrode active material is more preferably from 4 to 15 μm (c4:18-29).
The claimed range of 100 nm to about 10 μm is found to be obvious for overlapping the 4 to 15 μm, disclosed by the prior art as preferable for negative electrode active material particles, at least at 4 to 10 μm.
Claims 13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Berhe (“A new class of lithium-ion battery using sulfurized carbon anode…” Journal of Power Sources, 434, (2019), 1-9), Rogojina (US 2023/0035035) and Horpel (US 2008/0032197).
Regarding claim 13, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The cited art does not appear to teach wherein a thickness of the electrodeposition induction layer is in a range of about 1 μm to about 50 μm.
In the battery art, Horpel teaches that it is conventional to form an electrode layer to have a thickness within the range of 5 to 25 μm or 15 to 100 μm for the benefit of balancing factors such as energy density and power output (paragraph [0045]).
The claimed range of 1 μm to about 50 μm is found to be obvious for overlapping the range suggested by Horpel which provides electrodes optimized in terms of energy density and power output balance.
Regarding claim 17-18, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The claimed lithium electrodeposition layer disposed on the electrodeposition induction layer appears to be a consequence of the charging of a cell as lithium ions move from the cathode and are deposited within the anode as described in applicant’s published paragraph [0024]. Since the cited art teaches the same electrochemical action (e.g. Berhe Section 3.1); therefore, a lithium electrodeposition layer would be also expected to be deposited between the electrodeposition induction layer and the protective layer during charging for the battery of the combined embodiment.
Moreover, because the lithium electrodeposition layer is formed by lithium deposition within the electrodeposition induction layer, the thickness of the lithium deposition layer would not be expected to be greater than that of the electrodeposition induction layer. As previously described in the rejection of claim 13, this layer may be configured to have a thickness 5 to 25 μm for certain embodiment in view of Horpel. In this case, the lithium electrodeposition layer would be expected to have a thickness of 50 μm or less.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Sun (US 2017/0358800): lithium sulfur battery with protective layer and nitrogen doped carbon material;
Cuisiner (US 2020/0259207): lithium sulfur battery with SPAN negative electrode;
Lee (US 2024/0387795): lithium sulfur battery with anode protective layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights